It may seem that I am beating a dead horse when I continue to go on
about the totally insane murder rate in Juarez. However, the fate of
that city on the border is a foreshadowing of where I fear corruption
and disregard for personal liberty is taking America's cities, and
eventually the whole United States.

There have been at least two ambushes of Mexican federal police by La
Linea, the enforcement arm of the Juarez Cartel, "justified" by claims
that the federales were working for the Sinaloa Cartel (one of the
bases for this claim is that the President of Mexico is kin by
marriage to the head of the Sinaloa Cartel. Hmmm.). In one, some
seventeen officers were gunned down. The more recent of the two was a
car bombing that killed "only" three people (apparently Mexico's
sicarios are better shots than bombers. Guess this reflects a taste
for more honorable methods of fighting.). Disturbingly, they
threatened another bombing if the American DEA and FBI did not
investigate claims that the Mexican government is helping the Sinalao
Cartel.

In the spring an American Consular employee and her husband were
murdered on their way back to El Paso from a birthday party in Juarez.
The husband was a corrections officer at the El Paso County jail. The
hit appears to have been carried out by the Barrio Azteca, an El Paso
gang that whose members work as mercenaries for La Linea. According to
a story going the rounds, the intended target was the husband because
he had mistreated one of the Azteca leaders when he was in jail in El
Paso.

I have no reason to comment one way or another on the truthfulness of
this claim. However, there is a very important point here. The leader
of the Azteca believed that as long as the corrections officer was in
the US both men were bound to play the game by American rules.
However, in Juarez La Linea and its mercenaries make the rules, and
once the correction officer entered Juarez he was open season.

The Juarez Cartel sees itself as sovereign. It believes it can not
only break the law in Mexico, but that it can in fact make its own
laws. It can set its own rules of justice. It can make requests of
foreign governments as an equal.

Years of corruption, rigged elections, and socialism substituted for
fundamental freedom have led to this point. The Mexican government is
fighting to retain sovereignty, not merely enforce the law. Tyranny in
Mexico has led to the point where criminals feel they can seize
sovereignty of whole cities without debasing themselves by becoming
politicians.

Do we want freedom? Or do we want to let corruption and special
privilege build up until people have no choice but to turn to criminal
gangs to survive? Does it have to get so bad that the local Mafia boss
walks in to city hall and takes over claiming to straighten out the
mess, and he's really an improvement? Folks, that's the next step in
Juarez, either that or the US seizes the northern tier of Mexican
states as unclaimed territory. Will Canada have to seize American
cities to restore order?

Look at Juarez. Look at Mexico. Look at where socialism substituted
for liberty ultimately takes you. Then choose what you want for
America. Since, you're reading TLE I can assume you've chosen a free
country. The question is, what praxis will you follow to achieve that
goal and spare us what happens when tyranny falls.

Bartucci:

The concept of civil government as a form of organized crime is as old
as the foundation of Babylon. A great deal of thought was devoted to
this subject by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment,
notably Dr. John Lockea physician who make his living largely in
the "turn-your-head-and-cough" trade and took something of a
diagnosis-oriented approach to the maladies he perceivedand in the
second of his Two Treatises (see
[here]
for a good brief article on his life and
career published in The Freeman in 1996) he wrote:

"...whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away,
and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery
under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with
the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and
are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men,
against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall
transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition,
Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into
the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties,
and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the
Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends,
and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their
original Liberty."

Thereby we get what is in essence the fundamentally American
discernment of what is and is not tyrannymeaning what reaches the
threshold at which armed rebellion becomes, by right, a proper and
lawful recourse on the part of the people.

America is a concept borne of the Enlightenment, and Dr. Locke had a
prominent role as the fertility specialist who saw to its conception.

It is not merely socialism in Mexico but violation of individual
rights in Mexico under the color of "socialism," socialism
employed by the governing class as a handwave to cloak their tyrannies
under the guise of the pursuit of "social justice."

Now, Mexico is not culturally or philosophically the
beneficiary of Dr. Locke's efforts. The poor bastards down there have
tried to assume the seeming of popular democracy and civil government
under the rule of law, but they lack the heritage and the knowledge
base that came to America with John Locke's contemporaries and
successors.

In these United States, in spite of the best efforts of our
educationalists and the malignant socialists who dominate the colleges
and the universities, even the victims of the government school
systems still retain at least a holographic fragment of a proper
understanding of what is today being called "American exceptionalism,"
the fruit of that literally blood-spattered philosophical struggle
conducted in the 17th and 18th Centuries to set the intellectual and
therefore moral and economic foundations upon which the Founders
erected the structure of civil government presently being dominated
and perverted by both factions of our big, permanently and
institutionally incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party.

The reason we're exceptional and pitiful wrecks like Mexico are so
fucked up is because we look back, consciously and directly or
subliminally and indirectly, upon the work of men like William Penn,
Algernon Sydney, Richard Rumbold, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Trenchard and
Gordon, and John Locke. The Mexicansthe Hispanic world as a wholehad
NOBODY of such stature and purpose, nobody to
help them find and integrate a definition of the individual human
being as morally, economically, and politically valuable in the face
of government power.

There's the real difference you're seeing between Juarez and El Paso
today. On one side of the border, the remnant of Locke's ideal, civil
government constrained by a rule of law enforced by the right of the
people to rise in violent revolution and replace it, a right so
credible that we have seldom needed to exercise it.

On the other side, in Juarez, a civil government so lawless that
flagrant, self-admitted narcotrafficantes condemn it as
illegitimate, denying that the rule of law even exists in their polity.

Even flagrant criminals understand that the rule of law is absolutely
vital to the survival of civil society. They see it functioning just
across the border in El Norte, and they want the armed "War on
(Some) Drugs" goons of the United Statesthe DEA and the FBIto
come down into their country and impose law and order upon
their own government.

How the hell much greater can the desperation of Mexico get?

What is presently being seen in Mexico isn't socialism per se but
rather the absence of the Enlightenment heritage which we in Americawhether
we trace our roots back to the settlers at Jamestown or to
parents who sang foreign-language lullabies to us in our cradlesabsorbed
in the cultural milieu that makes this nation "exceptional."

That heritage is death to socialism just as it is death to every form
of tyranny over the mind of man, as the clueless Barry Soetoro and his
coterie of ACORN elves have been learning since Crash Test Johnnie
took that spectacular dive in November 2008 and let the rapists
rampage into the orphanage.

Aaron Zelman and Mr. Smith promulgated a entirely acceptable solution
to the problem posed by Mexico in their novel Hope (2001).

A Bill of Rights plebiscite.

Translate the first ten articles of the Amendments into Spanish,
[Done http://www.jpfo.org/your10rights/pdf-doc/bor-spanish.pdfEditor]
and publish them in Mexico. Engage a popular vote to determine if the
people of a given Mexican state want to join the federal union, based
upon their acceptance of the Bill of Rights as valid and supreme law.

Hell, even the drug traffickers would go for that, wouldn't they?

Perez:

Please remember that Latin American Revolutionary thought was
influenced by French Revolutionary thought, which includes the idea
that it was the invention of the concept of property that ended the
state of nature, which French social contract thinkers view as the
equivalent of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden. Meanwhile
conservative Latin Americans view themselves as the successors of the
old Spanish Aristocracy, entitled to take from the "lower classes."

An allergy to flying lead caused my family to leave Mexico, now you
know part of the reason I'm glad we never went back.

[And French Revolutionary thought came mostly out of Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, a complete shit-headEditor]

Like this? Why not pay the author!Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Like this? Why not pay the author!Select amount then click "Donate Now"